Thou shalt not murder, unless?
Through a stimulating conversation on pacifism involving a miss Beattie and a Mr. Liantonio (go figure), I’ve come up with a series of scenarios to try to figure out when “do not murder” does or does not apply. I’ll let you know on the front end that I would answer #1 with a “yes”, #2 with a “I’m not sure” and #3 with a “no”. The problem I face, though, is in trying to find the fundamental difference between the three scenarios which warrant a different response to each. It seems like the same principle should apply to all three, namely that one should always defend the weaker vessel. But you’ll see my quandary in a minute.
Scenario #1 A man breaks into your house and is getting ready to kill your kids and rape your wife. He has a gun, but so do you, and you have the opportunity to stop him only if you kill him. What do you do?
Scenario #2 You’re a Christian civilian in Nazi Germany during the war. You see an SS officer escorting about a hundred Jews to a concentration camp where you know they will die. You have a gun; you could use this gun, kill the officer and save the hundred Jews from certain death. What do you do?
Scenario #3 Present day, United States. 4,400 babies are murdered on your soil on a daily basis. Though you’re obviously not able to take care of the problem entirely, you could save some unknown hundreds of babies by way of violence. What do you do?
The correct answer to #3 is obvious. But the reason I throw it in is because it calls into question what would otherwise be an easy answer to #1 and #2. I really would love responses to this. I want to know how I should live as a representative of Christ now so that I don’t have to figure it out on the fly when the great trouble comes upon the earth.
And the anticipated blog appears.
I don’t really having any profound insights here. If I did, you would have heard them last night. I comment merely to say you raise some good questions… and I am curious to see what some other people think about this stuff.
Christine
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 12:15 pm
OK, I couldn’t get the editor in me (who has spent HOURS giving the above-mentioned Mr. Liantonio my ceaseless opinions on how he can communicate more clearly in his writing) to leave it alone…. so… please forgive this… and feel free to promptly delete the comment as soon as you’ve read, considered, and moved your mouse over to the delete button. But…
I think you might want to clarify Scenario #3. You stated it much more clearly last night. And, while it’s not impossible to figure out, it’s not necessarily obvious what you are saying “no” to with the way that this is presently stated.
Christine
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I would state simply that killing and murdering are two different things, based on intention and state of the heart.
provoke
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Matt, you already know what I think, but I definitely want in on this conversation so I’ma chip in my two cents. Basically principle I’m looking at is, “Stewarding and guarding your sphere of authority.”
1) I agree with you; someone breaks into your house and threatens your family, you do whatever it takes to put that dude out of commission. Your family has been entrusted to you by God, to love and protect them, and if someone refuses to lift a finger to defend their family, that person has seriously dropped the ball as far as their calling as a parent and spouse.
2) This one is fuzzy to me as well, but I would say (until I hear some solid Biblical reasoning otherwise), it would be wrong to kill the officer in that instance. Now, if you were an Allied soldier, authorized and expected to take action against the enemy, then I would say it was totally within your sphere of authority to take out the enemy officer and free that band of people.
- So what does a believing civilian do in that instance? I’d look at someone like Corrie Ten Boom. You take the oppressed into your house, feed them, care for them, hide them, and get them out of harm’s way, risking your own life and welfare to do so. I’d also look at Rees Howells, taking your petitions before a God who is actaully big enough, just enough, and able enough to make an impact in whatever area of injustice is prevailing.
2.b) – Just wanted to throw out there that in cases of war, I think it would be right and required of a governing official to defend their nation by use of arms.
3) I can’t imagine anyone who would arrive at any other conclusion about the ethics of this situation–we absolutely cannot storm the nearest abortion clinic by force in the name of saving the babies. Who knows but that God’s way of shutting the abortion clinic down is by saving the souls of every doctor who works there?
3b) This just occurred to me as I was writing–and I can’t believe that this didn’t come up at some point last night–but we need to remember any evil person killed in the name of a just cause will go to hell. Do we really (as of yet) have the discernment to say whether they will ever repent of their ways if allowed to live? What if someone had killed Saul of Tarsus before the Damascus Road experience, in the name of defending righteousness? Something to think about…
Anyway, I wish I had more scripture to solidify what I’m trying to say. But I can’t think of a single instance in the Word where someone took matters of justice into their own hands, apart from the direct will of God, and had it go well in the long run.
Even in the case of national wars, it looks to me like if God raises you up to bring judgment and discipline against another nation, you should be seriously worried for the state of your own nation. Excepting Israel, when they were initially taking the Promised Land, the nations that God raised up were themselves grossly unrighteous and met their own judgment later on down the road (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc. etc.)
So there’s my two cents–again–for what they’re worth.
Amanda Beattie
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Christine, I can’t stand it when I’m not clear, so I give you the right to always call me out on my ambiguity… whether you feel like it or not.
Amanda, your incredible! Thank you so much for doing what you do, staying strong in the place of prayer, night after night asking God for wisdom and revelation. It shows.
matthartke
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Very interesting conversation. Amanda, I like how you laid out your thought process, but I have a question for you…
Why doesn’t the logic you applied in 3b (killing the wicked sends them to hell) apply in scenario 1? Why not start interceding and witnessing to the intruder rather than pulling out a gun? I’m not saying that this is what I would do, or even that I’m confident that it’s what we should do. But I think it’s an important question.
I read an amazing story in a book called “Prayer Walking” (by a guy named Henry Gruver). Someone was threatening his life, with a knife to his throat, and Henry ended up leading him to the Lord by the end of the story. There’s more to it than that, but the story has always made me wonder what I would do in a similar situation.
Another thought. What if an intruder was threatening the life of your spouse and family if you did not deny the name of Christ? Denying the Lord is not the answer. So, what if you have a gun when that happens? Is it ok to say to your persecutor – “I will not deny the Lord, and I won’t leave my family in your hands. I will kill you.” I know that’s a different than the initial scenario. But IF it would not be ok to kill our enemy in the circumstance of persecution, then why is it ok in other circumstances.
I am NOT trying to argue that the biblical answer to #1 is to do nothing. If that is the biblical mandate, then I have some serious maturing to do…because if I was ever in that situation, everything in me would be screaming to be Mama Bear to my little cubs and rip that guy to shreds. You don’t mess with my kids! But, is that the best response? I don’t know.
sarah
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Sarah -
The way I look at it, it’s a much different issue between 1 and 3b. With scenaro 1, you’re looking at guy who is about to destroy your family unless you intervene. You’d better intervene. I think that if you can stop the guy without killing him, then you need to do it (i.e. if you have him incapacitated and tied up on the floor, you don’t put a bullet to his head–you call the police ot come deal with him). But if it’s a matter of reacting before he kills your kids, and he doesn’t survive the encounter, I would not consider that murder. You are probably (hopefully) not so interested in making the guy die as you are letting your kids live.
In scenario 3, you are looking at a case of hunting somebody down because they are evil, setting up a plot for their ruin, and purposefully and maliciously ending their life. Unless you have had an unquestionable word from God (I’m talking audible voices, angels, and writing on the wall), I can’t see how it’s within our jurisdiction as non-governmental people to take justice into our own hands. I know that I myself simply still have too much mixture and not enough discernment to make that call without bringing judgment on my own head.
When you’re looking at persecution, I think you still defend your family if it is in your ability to do so–it’s not our place to sacrifice someone else’s life if there’s anything we can do to stop it (short of denying Christ, etc.). But when a guy has got a knife to *my* throat–assuming that there’s something I could even do to get out of that situation–that’s when I have to start asking hard questions about self-sacrifice.
Is this making sense? What do you think?
Amanda Beattie
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 4:39 pm
In a deliberate attempt to elusively contribute something challenging, I would argue that the answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 are all ‘yes’ and at the same time are all a resounding ‘no’. I think I’ve picked up on the backtracking logic that tells us that if it is wrong to take pitchforks and torches to the local abortion clinic, it is also wrong to blow some methhead’s brains out when he’s in your house, whatever his intentions.
At the same time, permit me to add an option #4…
#4 Present day, United States. 4,400 babies are murdered on your soil on a daily basis. Do you call down fire from heaven to consume the local abortion clinic?
Looking at it that way, we can open up an entirely different ball game when we talk about the judgement of the Lord. We can visit Numbers 25 and talk about Phinehas if you like. We can talk about Annanias and Saphira and know that *those* days are coming again. We can talk about 2 Kings 1 and then think about the ramifications of what partnering with God in intercession looks like, in asking for mercy and asking for judgement.
Today, my answer would be “No” to questions 1, 2 and 3. That doesn’t mean that in some of those hypothetical situations I *would* refrain from pulling the trigger – in fact I’m certain that in positions 1 and 2 I probably could not contain myself.
Tomorrow, maybe my answer would be different. I think that ethics changes significantly when one realises that “Human Rights” amount to eternal death in the Lake of Fire, and that talking ethics in the same breath as talking the judgement and sovreignty of God can get a little hairy…especially when talking about cooperating in the judgement of God.
Before I leave it at that, I thought that Jehu would be another interesting character to bring into play here. God ordered Jehu to slaughter unarmed men and women in cold blood. Jehu took God’s judgement and turned it into his own vendetta, or his own crusade. Just like the pagan nations that God used to punish Israel, Jehu went into it with a very wrong spirit, ultimately to his own destruction. It was not Phinehas’ zeal for the Lord that drove him, but human outrage.
Would I be feeling human outrage or Phinehas zeal in scenarios #1, #2 and #3?
Sorry for answering your question with a question
Bing
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Honestly, bing, I don’t think feeling “zeal for the Lord” really has relevance when your wife and kids are about to die. I doubt the Lord would want you to take a step back in that situation and ask yourself if the outrage you are experiencing is from the “spirit” or from the “flesh”. I don’t think we should be so dualistic in any of these scenarios.
matthartke
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Hey, when are we gonna do a blog together?
matthartke
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I shall try to be clearer.
The zeal idea occured to me more towards the #3 scenario. In fact, I was pointing out more that if it is immoral to kill a murderer in a building down the road, it is still immoral to kill him in your own home. The zeal like Phinehas was more aimed at questioning (myself more than y’all) when it will be and what it will look like for us to actually cooperate in a just way with the judgement of God, in a way that Jehu failed to act.
Perhaps a more accurate response would be as follows:
#1 – It would be wrong to pull the trigger, but I would surely do it
#2 – It would be wrong to pull the trigger, but I would surely do it, probably dominated by human outrage
#3 – It would be wrong to pull the trigger, and there are no scenarios that I would pull the trigger. There are scenarios where I could see cooperation with divine judgement (ie: fire from heaven) which, like I said, changes the rulebook as far as ethics are concerned, though not as far as “how should I act”.
Must be my foreign mind making me so dualistic
Bing
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 8:59 pm
So, you’re pretty much a passivist who wishes he wasn’t one?
matthartke
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I’m a pacifist who knows his limits.
It’s pronounced “aɪˈdiəˌlɪzəm”
Bing
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Ah, thank you. So… when are you gonna start blogging?
matthartke
Friday, February 2, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Matt – Your edit of scenario #3 is greatly improved; much clearer.
Amanda – I think the Corrie Ten Boom argument is one of the most compelling things I’ve heard (from any angle) on #2. I’m still not sure if I agree or disagree with you on #2 as a whole, but I think you’re really on to something with that particular point.
I think that the availability of other options is a significant factor in each of these situations AND in the overall feelings we have about them (at least the common initial reaction that reading the scenario is likely to produce).
In scenario #3, there are clearly a multitude of other options that would be FAR more effective when it comes to confronting the issue of abortion. And murdering one abortion doctor accomplishes relatively little (in the overall scheme of things) at a very high cost. (And it is an especially high cost when you consider the potential of the murdered abortion doctor ending up in hell.)
I don’t mean for this to sound as much like an economics analysis as it probably does… but it is a fairly simple principle that I think naturally comes into play when we look at these situations… cost-benefit analysis. One thing that makes #2 feel better is the fact that it appears to have a relatively high pay-off compared to the cost.
Obviously nothing I’ve said really contributes at all to a conclusion as to what would be the proper, godly response in these situations. Rather, I am specifically remarking on what I view as a significant factor in how we initially react to these things. I think that, over-all, we are not comfortable making ethics decisions in such a “cold” and “calculated” way. But I believe that this kind of logic does play into our immediate response to the scenarios.
And that’s part of why I think these are such good questions. They cause us to look past our initial response and figure out the REAL differences between these situations and why we should or shouldn’t actually treat them differently.
Christine
Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 8:14 am
Scenario #1
I see nothing wrong with disabling the man with the gun, but killing him is unjustified. if it is impossible to not kill him, you then start to pray for deliverance. it sounds like a fat chance that anyone would not kill him, which is obvious. “jealousy is a husbands fury” therefore, anyone would beat the man to a bloody pulp. in my head, i think i’d only beat him to a bloody pulp, and then begin to do everything in my power to minister to him. in the heat of the situation it would be hard to not kill him, but this violent attack is influenced by demonic activity as much as you allowing yourself to come to the conclusion that you have the authority to end the man’s life. my family would be considered martyrs had we responded by humbling ourselves and praying, and doing nothing, and acting in compassion for the man’s salvation. (like when we prayed for Saddam’s salvation at this last onething conference, instead of cheering on for his execution)
unless God tells you to kill this man, which I think He’d rather save the guy who’s doing this to your family, instead of you writing his death warrant because he’s hurting your family on this side of eternity.
Scenario #2
You confront the SS officer and demand release of the Jews, and remind him that the blood of God’s people rests on this SS officer’s hands, and not just Hitler’s. You also tell him of his rewards for doing so, and you do everything in your power to convince him. If you he warns you that he’ll kill you, you would continue to defend the case of His people until he kills you. Then the Jews would therefore be moved within their inner man, that a Christian, defended their case, and became a martyr for their salvation. It is how i believe we’re going to provoke them to jealousy. And if the SS officer does not threaten to kill you, you then run to the train and do everything in your power to free them, (which of course you will be shot anyways) so either way, the violent approach is yet again, discouraged. If you shoot the SS officer, you just gave the Jews a weak testimony of love, and actually used revenge for salvation, instead of wholehearted desire (like Paul had) for their salvation, which carries MUCH more life on it than some brainwashed Nazi guy that equally needs Jesus, as much as the Jews did.
Scenario #3
This one is intense. If you play dumb, and just let the abortion laws make their way without contending for justice, you are condoning abortion. if you don’t do everything in your power (i.e. vote against abortion, inform the nieve to the facts, and fast & pray) the blood is on your hands. Abortion will always be around, but we can take care of our legal system and make it illegal, that way the blood is on the mother & fathers hands, and not our government, or us. Even if we lose the vote, the blood will not be on your hands. All we could do after losing the vote is pray for deliverance, and for God to forgive our nation.
Adam Hanly
Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 6:18 pm